...And further, the nature of what would be agreed as a right would change depending upon the specific characteristics of the social group that is making the social contract...
Then there can be no question that the modification of the social contract would not prohibit the (re)introduction of slavery or the arbitrary defenestration of homosexuals, is there?
Historical experience shows us that the social contract can be modified in just such repugnant ways. Just one example is the fate of a good many new England "witches."
Were there now a sufficient Evangelical Christian majority, I would imagine that our non-heterosexual citizenry could have legitimate fear for their rights and safety... And I have no doubt that the crusade would be lead by demagogues self-righteously spouting the rhetoric of rights and natural law.... I mean, all those brave anti gay soldiers in the Military, they conceive themselves and their actions as defending the highest standards of our nation, correct? And should they achieve a majority, they would be stopped by who?
And finally, such rights cannot be considered "inalienable" since there are always situations where a society considers an individual has lost his rights (IE a criminal). And if rights can be removed in some circumstances, they are not inalienable.
I suggest that those incarcerated have not lost a right but merely the ability to exercise it.
And no doubt you would have a similarly facile explanation of how capital punishment does not really deprive one of life
