The objective morality is based on the inner conscience that God has given us. Everyone knows that rape is wrong deep down.
You forgot a word there. "Everyone now
knows" - which assumes that everyone does know, of course, an unverifiable and unwarranted assumption (for example, before I watched a documentary on it, I would have said that nobody would kidnap a woman and force them to become a bride of their kidnapper, yet there are places even today where this is not only legal, it's customary). But leaving that aside, the fact remains that the view of rape being a moral wrong is only a relatively recent moral innovation. Your idea that "everyone knows rape is wrong" is not supported by history; one of the time-honored perks for soldiers was that they could have their way with women in places they conquered, just to give one of a litany of awful examples.
Some people ignore it and go out and rape. But, everyone would try and stop a rape if they saw one taking place.
You just contradicted yourself here. If some people can ignore this (imaginary) moral imperative to commit rape, then not everyone would try to stop a rape if they saw one taking place, now would they? If nothing else, the people who would commit it in the first place wouldn't see any reason to stop someone else from doing it. In short, there is no universal moral imperative against rape, except in your own mind because you think your god created one. You're mistaking the moral rules of the culture you grew up in for some kind of universal morality, the same way people have done since the beginning of recorded history and probably before too.
This means that we place our morality of "stopping rape" over someone's morality of "fun to rape." If you claim your morality is superior to someone's then you must have an objective standard by which to judge your morals as better.
Not at all. People are perfectly capable of judging others by the subjective standards that they hold within themselves. They don't need an objective standard to do that, and never have. I'm sorry that you don't understand that, but it's true and your belief otherwise won't change it.
Some rapists claim they were born with a feeling to rape and they can't help it. People who engage in incest claim this too. So do pedophiles. And more recently, this is what homosexuals claim as well. Yet, we are slowly allowing the homosexuals to engage i their behavior freely instead of stopping them like we do rapists, pedophiles, and incest people. Pretty soon, we will have rapists, pedophiles, and incesters demanding equal rights because they were "born with it." But the truth is, it's all sin and we recognize it deep down. Otherwise, we would allow everything.
First off, this is the slippery slope fallacy. You're declaring that if we allow one thing, we'll eventually allow all these other things and since those other things are bad, we shouldn't allow the first thing even though it has nothing to do with those other things. Secondly, just what does homosexuality - especially consensual homosexuality - have to do with rape, incest, pedophilia, or other such things? Aside from being on a list of restrictions attributed to a god by a tribal people, not a thing - and that leaves aside the fact that rape, for example, was considered to be a far less severe 'sin' than homosexuality (male homosexuals were put to death, but male rapists were simply made to marry the woman they raped - in effect, 'punishing' the rapist by giving him the opportunity to have lots more sex with his victim), while pedophilia isn't even in the Bible you supposedly follow!
So let's not have this ridiculous statement "we recognize things as sin otherwise we'd allow everything". The fact is that people have allowed plenty of things in the past that we now consider horrible and vicious crimes, deserving of severe punishment. Some of those things, like slavery, were explicitly stated to be okay by the Bible. In other words, what a culture considers wrong (or sinful) is dependent on the culture's morality, not on some divine edict from above.
The truth of the matter is that if a pedophile or homosexual is "born with it" then how can we justify sending a pedophile to jail and not a homosexual? Pedophiles claim they are just as attracted to little kids as straight people are to women or homosexuals are to men. Yet, we punish them for just following their urges.
This attempt by you to claim that it's all about urges is pathetic, skeptic. No, the actual truth of the matter is that as long as sexual behavior is consensual and between relative equals, there's nothing particularly wrong with it. Pedophilia violates that because there's no way for an adult and a child to be relatively equal; rape violates that because it isn't consensual. So let's not have this stupid "urges" argument again.