I stop short in saying whether or not she's "incorrect" or otherwise. For me to make that judgment would presuppose that I am "correct" when such may or may not be the case. The most that I'm personally willing to do in such as case is to say that I disagree with her opinion.
Based on it's definition, it *could* be said that homosexuality *is* a deviant behavior, though less deviant now than, say, fifty years ago. As societal standards shift, what was deviant in the past is less so now.
The "biological error" remark I also sorta understand. The primary objective of every species is regeneration. So, with that in mind, homosexuality tends to defeat that prime objective – ergo is, biologically speaking, a mistake or error.
Teejay, what if I say Martha Stewart is deviant? Will I get a huge socialite protest on my front lawn? The definition of deviant can change very swiftly with the mores of the society in question. The society we live in is not necessarily one in which massive progeneration is key or even necessary. As the earth becomes a more crowded place fertility becomes less essential. I think (my opinion yet again) that she is far behind the times and very much guilty of hate speech and poor advice.