I see it as completely identical. Any change you could cause by genetic manipulation could, in principle, be the result (however unlikely) of random mutation. And if it were, there would simply be no question at all about exploiting that new trait in agriculture. So why should GM be subject to such an extremely different level of scrutiny, when the results are the same?
Should an arson be let off the hook because a lightning bolt could have come from the sky and lit the house on fire?
With GM foods, we are the cause for the change, so we should at least try to make sure that the changes we make are safe and for the good of humanity. Changes that occur in the wild are largely beyond our control, so we accept a certain amount of risk.
My apologies for the confusion - more than anything I was agreeing with you, that the position of GMO opponents that it's inherently wrong to "monkey" with the genome is blinkered, and reflects an ignorance that the genomes of all species are inherently "self-monkeying."
I will second that. Humans have been trying to change the genotype through selection of phenotype for 10,000 years or so. We can now directly change the genotype. I see this as a step in the right direction.