I would also say that people like CC have no concept of rights. What they call rights are actually government granted privilege and social contract.
You're totally missing the point. You can dispute CC's concept of right, but nevertheless he has one. The fact is that equality can be argued on grounds other than natural rights theory. You just stated it above, so Q.E.D., you proved my point for me. I must again emphasize that we are not talking about which is more persuasive, but mere issues of definition. You don't seem to be able to avoid equivocating between those separate and distinct concepts. You may not find positivist account of equality compelling, but it is nonetheless an account of equality. "What a positivist calls "rights" are government granted privileges" and what a natural rights theorist calls right are privileges granted from some other, usually supernatural, source.
They are both accounts of the existence of rights. It is folly to deny this fact.
Moreover, you are misstating facts when you claim that a divine or otherwise supernatural source is unnecessary to a natural rights theory. You say yourself: "Additionally, natural rights are natural. Which means that they are part in parcel to being human." Rights are not biological, nor are they governed by the laws of physics. Since rights are not scientifically describable parts of the natural world, how are they part and parcel to being human if not by some supernatural means? God, or the Creator, is most commonly considered the source for natural rights by most natural rights theorists, though it could be some other transcendent principle. The point is that the source of "natural rights" must
by definition be something supernatural in order to imbue the rights with a "natural" character, since they are not otherwise found in nature. Without the supernatural source you are just talking about positivism, and if that's what you're doing you're actually on the same side as Capt. Courtesy without even realizing it. Considering how confused you are about this subject that wouldn't surprise me at all actually.
Regardless, you need to keep your head clear, because you fall over and over again into the mistake of arguing issues of definition as if they are issue of the merits. This is the fallacy of
equivocation. You might have a compelling argument for natural rights (still haven't seen it though), but that does not detract from the fact that Capt. Courtesy also has what he sees as a compelling argument for positivism. They both account for the equality of humanity and the existence of rights, but in different ways. One may be right and the other wrong, but they are
both accounts of equality and rights, and that is the point.