Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Jinkies]

I will however point out the fact that you vegans/vegetarians(the non fish/egg eating type) are only as such because you have the luxury to be so.

One awesome thing is that just about anyone who can read this thread has the luxury of being vegan. The main thing stopping the rest of the world from having that luxury is that the concept is not embraced at all, so there aren't enough beans and rice (or whatever) to go around. Barring some sort of cataclysmic event, in which case we're all well and truly fucked anyway, the luxury of veganism isn't going anywhere. I also think luxury is too strong a word, as being a healthy vegan is incredibly simple.

So while you might be taking the more moral action, it is not immoral to consume meat.

This statement really comes down to the foundations of your own morality. I don't know what you base a being's value on, so I really can't derive any meaning from your statement. Could you give your argument as to why it's not immoral to consume meat?

If you don't have an argument, The New York Times recently had a contest where people could send in essays on why it's ethical to eat meat. The winning result's from a vegan and is about vat meat, but the rest are regular pro-meat arguments. While those arguments are uniformly bad, you may be able to find a nugget in there to build on to form an argument that isn't logically contradictory or purely nonsensical. One bright spot on this forum is that nobody's argument is "God says so," though some do carry about the same weight.

Let's not get into pain and suffering either. It is possible to raise and butcher an animal humanely.

I'm not sure what definition of "humanely" you're using here. Here's one from the #1 Google result:

"characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed"

Here are some synonyms from the same site:

"merciful, kind, kindly, kindhearted, tender, compassionate, gentle, sympathetic; benevolent, benignant, charitable"

I'm not sure where killing an animal because people enjoy eating it would fit into that definition. I get that lots of people have no issue slotting killing an animal for its flesh into their definition of "humane," but it really doesn't seem to fit the word in the slightest. I think using another word than humane would be more appropriate than shoehorning an act that is pretty much the opposite of humane into humane's definition.

I'd say a humane act would be taking care of the sick or protecting the defenseless. An inhumane act would be killing and eating the sick and defenseless.