Impermanence and suffering in Buddhism I have an intuitive agreement with the idea that impermanence does mean that everything either is or ends in suffering.

But I am not sure it makes rational sense.

Can anyone explain the arguments for and against this characterization of dukkha?

E.g. perhaps something has innate value, is its own end, but only relative to some time and place, such that we are not separated from the value of it when it passes. Surely, one might cliam, that would mean it is not dukkha.
There is a convolution of meanings for dukkha which depends on context. One translation for dukkha is "unsatisfactoriness". 

Of course, it is not stated there is no feeling of satisfaction or pleasure born of impermanent things, as that would be absurd. I just ate a big sandwich and I can tell you I don't feel hungry, I feel satisfied with respect to hunger. I also would be lying if I said it was a painful experience.

In the introduction of the Majjhima Nikāya translation, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:


  The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction.


So, one may find satisfaction on conditioned things. But that satisfaction is doomed to be  be partial and/or temporary. Therefore, it is not satisfactory in its greatest sense; it's, thus, dukkha.