Your answer still does not help in determining how we determine what is wrong and what is right. You answer only explains how we can study the behaviors but not how we can pass judgment on them.
If I recall correctly, I've responded to this by now, but to recap, evolutionary biology and biology of human behavior, in addition to social circumstances, knowledge, and exposure to other cultures all contribute to determining what is socially appropriate (right) and what is not socially appropriate (wrong). Knowing human behavior in more detail helps to understand why people don't always do what they may intend to do. Paul talks about this when he says the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Well, we know better now, just like we know why someone who suffers from schizophrenia experiences hallucinations.
How do you pass judgment on what are compulsions?
I think Sam Harris has a persuasive argument about just this thing. Basically, when we note that one's well-being is unjustifiably compromised, and can be relieved, the ethical thing to do is relieve that suffering. Same thing with preventing suffering. I'll link a video where he explains just this thing at the end of this post.
If they are compulsions from normal human nature, they are neither good nor bad so how can they "hurt" anyone?
Now I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Rape "hurts" people because something being forced into one's vagina or rectum against their will is physically damaging and emotionally traumatizing. Surely you understand this objectively. As 12Monkeys mentioned, behaviors we consider to be crimes today were customary until relatively recently in history. Rape was not honored as a crime against a wife a hundred years ago. Rape against children wasn't spoken about a hundred years ago, and this was justified Christian societies. Do you want me to go on, or do you recognize that you and I have the same understanding that some behaviors hurt, they causes suffering, and when that is avoidable it's ethical to avoid it. The difference we have is in explaining how this happens, and therefore what solution to apply. But the idea that suffering and pain are unique to religious people is not only offensive (don't worry, I'm not offended, I'm rather used to this foolishness), but ignorant and revealing of the theist's inability to think rationally, or with communicate with maturity.
How do you determine what is good for society and what is bad for society? That implies you have some moral standard. Where did this moral standard come from?
Does it surprise you to find atheists have a moral standard? Really? I find it impossible to believe that you are surrounded by people who either act no differently than honey badgers, scrounging around for their next meal, or are walking, talking personas of Christ Almighty Himself.
How do you determine what is criminal without absolute objective moral truths? What is the foundation for showing compassion and comfort to another if you can't explain where moral standards come from? Hurt would be illusory because evil and sin are illusory.
I'm going to assume you're trying to make a point, and this isn't a genuine question.
Here is the video I promised.
Sam Harris, Science Can Answer Moral Questions
Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape
long, but very informative summary of his book by the same name