Sunday, Monday: Happy days.

Tuesday, Wednesday: Happy days.

Thursday, Friday: Happy days.

Saturday… Oh boy, Saturday. What a day.

Now, not to say that my Saturday was not a particularly joyous day, but I think a word like “interesting” takes a bit more prominence. Yeah, I think it’s fair to characterize moments of honest dialogue — not pretty, politically correct or held back for fear of offending — as “interesting.” Important, too. Dialogues and discussions are among the most important tools at our disposal as human beings. And believe it or not, we really can have mature, respectful discussions in this day and age.

Mine started when I arrived at The Salon Professional Academy for a routine touch-up, a dye and a cut. Nothing too fancy. But here it gets a little interesting: My friend and stylist is a girl I met through the visits I made last year to the local Christian worship service Salt Company.

My general disagreements with Christianity had never really impacted our friendship, as both she and I remained very respectful of each other’s beliefs. But then a certain vote about marriage in Maine got me a bit worked up.

To echo — and slightly modify — a statement made by Ryan Reynolds in the movie “Waiting,” never f— with people who handle your hair. But, me being me, I had to.

“So, what are your thoughts about the marriage situation in Maine?” I asked, the cold goo of the hair dye covering my roots.

Not surprisingly, she sided with the voters who shot down gay marriage. What was surprising was her response when I asked if she would vote down gay marriage if she had the chance. Considering the political climate, that chance is looking increasingly likely.

After all, it was just this same Saturday that former Gov. Terry Branstad returned to campaign for the same office he left long ago and urged for a similar ban in our state. Other politicians have been making similar calls to action for some time now.

My friend responded that she wasn’t sure how she would vote. She said it brought her no joy to see others denied rights, but she had difficulty reconciling that pain with what she knew in her heart and in her faith.

“May I pose a hypothetical situation to you?” I asked her.

She nodded.

“Suppose a vote came to Iowa to make Christianity an illegal practice. I can tell you now that if I had to choose to vote one way or the other, I would vote to keep it legal.” The dye continued to be applied, and I could feel it seeping down to my scalp. I continued, “Despite all my disagreements with the institution of Christianity and my belief that the world would be better off without organized religion in general, I would never vote to take that away.”

She wondered why. I’d wager some of you do too.

Firstly, it’s not my business. Whether or not someone is Christian has no bearing on how I see them as a person. And while we will have our disagreements from time to time, I will always respect the privacy of the individual to do as he or she will, so long as it does no harm to others. In my eyes, being Christian — or of any other religious persuasion — follows these guidelines.

Secondly, as I understand it, peoples’ religions can be an intrinsic part of who they define themselves to be. Just as I have friends who identify themselves as gay first and place everything else second, I know others who title themselves Christian or Christ-follower to the exclusion of other descriptors. Who am I, even given a hypothetical vote, to deny people the rights to follow through on who they, at the core of everything, are?

Along those lines and thirdly, who am I to vote away rights? I could be bitter and make the argument that Christians would still hold the same rights as everyone else in the country; They could worship, absolutely. They just had to worship one of our many other religions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Islam, etc. All of these would be fair game, but to give Christians their own right to worship their way just because they choose to be different would be to give “special rights.”

But it is, quite simply, morally and ethically wrong to deny someone rights, especially when the voter already possesses such rights. And so, I would not make the above argument.

I would go so far as to say such a vote — a vote in which the outcome determines someone else’s rights — should never occur. Undoubtedly, we Iowans will face this situation, but it is my belief that it should not be so. Voters should not have a chance to vote away rights of gay and lesbian couples, just as I should never be allowed to vote on a Christian’s right to worship.

Along with these reasons, I explained to my friend the differences between religious marriage, civil marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships.

“I guess I hadn’t really thought about it that much,” she said. “I didn’t even realize there were different kinds of marriage.” She paused. “What you’re saying makes sense, though.”

I left the salon that day with a fancy new haircut and a smile that remained until late that evening, when I received a text from another conservative acquaintance.

“Thank you Obama supporters, we pay for murder now!” it read, referring to the Stupak Amendment made to the health care bill passed by the House on Saturday.

In a slightly more virulent conversation than the one I had at the salon, I had to explain that the Stupak Amendment actually made it harder to receive federal funds for abortion.

 The amendment itself reads, “No funds authorized or approved by this Act [or an amendment made by this Act] may be used to pay for any abortion to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

I also had to explain that the bill still had to go through the Senate and thus was not yet law, that people like Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, had called the amendment a “very significant pro-life milestone,” and that blaming me personally for abortion was at best misplacing blame and at worst, extremely childish.

We ended a texting spree of a conversation at about 2 a.m., at which point we came to a less-politely worded ‘let’s agree to disagree’ closing.

I had not definitively changed either of my friends’ minds — indeed, it was never my aim to — but I had started discussions. Discussions are the foundation of education, civility and democracy. As an educated, civilized and democratic society, we have an obligation to be responsible in the discussions we have, no matter the subject.

My Saturday was filled with such discussions. May your days, both current and future, be filled with the same.

Sophie Prell is a senior in pre-journalism and mass communication from Alta.

Want more interaction? Join Sophie’s Facebook Fan Page and debate columns, browse previous columns, and more.