See - I don't get some of the hate re Gwen Stacy having babies after a one-night stand with Norman Osborn. Is it a retcon? Yes, it is. And a badly-fitting retcon? Sure.
People were offended because:
-It raped the mythology
-It was ridiculously out of character
-It was done solely so Quesada could get revenge on the fans
-It makes all the times Peter spent mopping about her death over the past 35 years kind of fucking pointless, now doesn't it?
-It was the complete opposite of what Lee, Kirby, and Ditko were trying to do with their stories.
But I don't agree with some of the comments (not Thrall's but I've seen it elsewhere) about how Gwen because of this is now being called names like a "whore". Just cause she didn't understand or get the creepy vibes from Norman Osborn and ends up having a one-night stand with him doesn't automatically "soil" her or anything. It was a poor decision. Some people make it.
She cheated on her one true love with his best friends dad! How is that not the definition of "Whore"!?
Of course, by having this "side" of the story be revealed thirty-plus years after the original storyline (I exaggerate, perhaps but still...) is a pretty poor retcon. So I do think the writer is overreaching when they try to suggest that this actually happened and nobody was aware of it.
Well JMS was really pissed off by having to write it. He was originally planning on having the kids be Pete's. Which is still a stupid idea. But not nearly as bad as when Quesada got a hold of it, and decided to change it to Norman. Because he thought it would make for better drama and he didn't want people thinking Pete is older then he actually is.