Alright, here we go.
Firstly, if I see an argument that is preposterous to me, I'm sure to reply to it. In this case, I've seen this one pseudo-argument being repeated like a dozen times in this thread alone and you just happened to be the last one brining it up. You mentioned that it's your personal believes and while I don't question that you are entitled to them, I assumed that you by stating them wouldn't mind defending them as well. But if that's the case, leave this post unanswered and I shall bother you no more.
Still, your reasoning here just doesn't make sense to me. You are saying that human beings are omnivores and therefore, If we don't have the right to eat meat then no non-human animal omnivores should either? Why, because they are likely to do the same? Well that doesn't matter. Right now we are the ones with the meat industry and no other animal is doing the same. This is no a question of any deontological principles that all animals have. Human beings can be judged by how we treat those who cannot defend themselves. In this case, we are treating animals that cannot defend themselves horribly, which is unethical no matter how you look at it.