In the example given, there was no mention of raise...so are you saying that a silent push of two 500's automatically makes the raise the total amount?
It will be a raise to the total amount, unless the multi-chip rule exception applies.
Although, I think I see where you are going with this... you could argue that if the person wanted to make a min-raise to 600, the betting of two 500 chips could be ambiguous (could be a raise to 1000 or to 600 and wanting change) and should be treated as a min-raise, just like betting a single 1000 chip would be ambiguous (could be a raise to 1000 or a call of 300 and wanting change)...
Currently, however, we (only) have exceptions for actions where it may be ambiguous as to whether a wager may be a call or a raise, but none for whether a wager may be a min-raise or a full raise.
As an aside... Although we have had the "single oversized chip" rule for ages, I've never really liked it and thought that it caused more problems than it solved. If someone had made the decision to make the default the bigger amount instead -- i.e. any chips that go into the pot stay in the pot and the wager is deemed whatever you put in the pot unless you verbalize otherwise -- it would certainly make enforcement much easier, and we wouldn't need so many exceptions for single oversized chips, multiple chips, etc. But somewhere along the line, someone made up the single chip exception to accommodate the common practice of putting a big chip silently in to call... and this opened up a whole, possibly unforeseen, set of other issues.